AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.31579/2768-0487/014
*Corresponding Author: Pedro Rolando López Rodríguez, National Hospital, Continental Street No. 152 between D´Strampes Street and Goicuría Street, Sevillano, Havana, Cuba.
Citation: Pedro R L Rodrìguez, Eduardo G Castillo, Olga C L Gonzàlez, Jorge A S Rocha, Luis M Quiala, et al. (2021) Trump’s covid-19 treatment: Can we offer it to other patients in the world. Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Research. 2(3) DOI: 10.31579/2768-0487/014
Copyright: ©2021 Pedro Rolando López Rodríguez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 18 March 2021 | Accepted: 14 April 2021 | Published: 16 April 2021
Keywords: desarda repair; inguinal hernia; lichtenstein repair; randomized trial
Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of Modified Desarda repair no mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia.
Methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial study of 1342 patients having 1394 hernias operated from January 2008 to December 2020. 690 patients were operated using Lichtenstein repair and 652 using Desarda repair. The demographie data (Age,Sex) , hernia type and location , anesthetic , operative time , postoperative pain and complications were analysed.
Results: There were no significant differences regarding age, sex, location, type of hernia, and pain in both the groups. The operation time was 52 minutes in Modified Desarda group and 42 minutes in the Lichtenstein group that is significant (p<0.05). The recurrence was 0.0 % in Modified Desarda group and 0.28 % in Lichtenstein group. But, there were 9 cases of infection to the polypropylene mesh in the Lichtenstein group, 2 of this required re-exploration. The morbidity was also significantly more in Lichtenstein group (7,6 %) as compared to Modified Desarda group (3.8 %). The mean time to return to work in the Modified Desarda group was 8.26 days while a mean of 12.58 days was in the Lichtenstein group. The mean hospital stay was 29 hrs. in Modified Desarda group while it was 49 hours in the Lichtenstein group in those patients who were hospitalized.
Conclusions: The modified Desarda repair scores significantly on Lichtenstein repair in most of all aspects, including reexplorations and morbidity. Modified Desarda repair is a better option compared to Lichtenstein repair.
In 1890, Eduardo Bassini described suture repair for inguinal hernia. This was a massive leap forward and has been the basis of open repair for over 100 years. The surgeon enters the inguinal canal by opening its anterior wall, the external oblique aponeurosis. The spermatic cord is dissected free and the presence of a lateral or a medial hernia is confirmed. The sac of a lateral hernia is separated from the cord, opened and any contents reduced. The sac is then sutured closed at its neck and excess sac removed. If there is a medial hernia, then it is inverted and the transversalis fascia is suture plicated. Sutures, are now placed between the conjoint tendon above and the inguinal ligament below, extending from the pubic tubercle to the deep inguinal ring. The posterior wall of the inguinal canal is thus strengthened.1Over 150 modifications to the Bassini operation have been described with little or no benefit except for the Should ice modification. In this operation, the transversalis fascia is opened by a central incision from deep inguinal ring to the pubic tubercle and then closed to create a double-thick, two-layered posterior wall (double breasting). The external oblique is closed in similar fashion. Expert centres have reported lifetime failure rates of less than 2 per cent after Should ice repair but it is a technically demanding operation which, in general hands, gives results identical to the Bassini repair [1].
The surgeons use different techniques in Cuba for inguinal hernia repair like Bassini or Shouldice and its modifications or different types of mesh repairs. The standard mesh is not available at many places and it is expensive also. Hernia treatment has become a health problem because of its social, economic and labour implications due to its high incidence in our population [1]. Until recently, the only parameters to be evaluated were recurrence, complication rates etc. Today, other parameters like cost, post-surgery wellbeing and quality of life have gained importance. The demand of general surgeons is to identify operations that are simple to perform without the need for complicated dissection and with low complication and recurrence rates. Avoidance of use of foreign material where possible is a basic surgical principal. The authors read about the Desarda repair which seems be simple in concept, avoids the use of mesh and gives the desired results. This repair is based on the concept of providing a strong and physiologically dynamic posterior wall to the inguinal canal. An undetached strip of the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle replaces the absent aponeurotic element in the posterior wall and the weakened conjoint muscle receives additional strength from the external oblique muscle to keep it physiologically dynamic [2]. There are still many controversies to answer. Which is the best technique for repair? [3] Is hernioplasty better than herniorrhaphy? Which is the best technique for hernioplasty or herniorrhaphy? Does laparoscopic surgery have a better cost-efficiency than open surgery? Is mesh necessary in all inguinal hernia repairs? The objective of this study is to re-evaluate the Lichtenstein mesh repair and compare it with the novel and “No mesh, physiological repair” described by Modified Desarda Technique.
This study was designed as a RCT(Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)among the 1342 patients (652 patients of Modified Desarda’s technique {modification of Desarda’s technique by adding Modified Bassini’s technique [Darn with continuoussuturing with non-absorbable polypropylenesuture]} and 690 patients of Lichtenstein procedure alone) of inguinal herniain Surgery Unit 1 & 2, Enrique Cabrera Hospital, Havana Cuba from a period of January 2008 to December 2020 with a viewto depict the short & intermediate term (05years) outcomes of newly proposed Modified Desarda’s technique in contrast to Lichtenstein procedure . All the patients from both sexes older than 16 years with primary and recurrent inguinal hernias were included. Patients operated on emergency basis were excluded. The diagnosis of inguinal hernia and its type was made by clinical examination. Information was given to the patients as regards the anesthetic procedures. The patient chose type of anaesthesia after discussion with the surgeon. The Randomization was performed using a consecutively numbered, sealed envelope, which was opened, in theatre and all patients having an even number were operated by the Lichtenstein and uneven numbers by the modified Desarda technique. The operating surgeon completed a data sheet. The operating surgeon was at consultant level for all operations.
The evaluator was also a surgeon of consultant level. All patients signed a written informed consent. Approval of the local ethical committee was given prior to the onset of the study. Modified Desarda repair was performed according to the surgical technique described by Dr. Desarda and mesh prosthesis repair was undertaken as described in the textbooks. Prophylactic antibiotic was administered in the operating room before surgery (Cefazoline 1g.) in the Lichtenstein group only. All patients were discharged as soon as their post-surgical recovery allowed, and all patients were instructed to do daily, routine, non-strenuous work after discharge. A non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (Diclofanac) analgesic was prescribed for a period of 5 days and continued if required. The consultants followed all the patients at 8 days, 1 month, 6 months and then yearrequired. The consultants followed all the patients at 8 days, 1 month, 6 months and then yearly thereafter. A data sheet was completed by the operating surgeon including type of hernia (Nyhus classification) [4], anaesthesia, technical details and intra-operative complications. At discharge, further data was added including any early post-operative complications. Patients were asked to complete a pain score on the first, third and fifth day after surgery using a linear analogue scale [5,6]. At first follow up, one month after surgery, further data were collected including time to return to normal activities. The Student T test was used to compare the independent measures and the Mann Whitney-U test for non-parametric data. The Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test were used to measure the association between quality variables.
There was no significant difference in relation to sex, age, location and type of inguinal hernia in both the groups. (Table 1).
Local anesthesia was used in 294 patients in Lichtenstein group and 399 patients in the Desarda group. All those 707(53.0%) patients were operated on as outpatient basis without hospitalization. In the remainder of 635 patients who were treated as in-patients,the mean hospital stay was 27 hours in Desarda group and 47 hours in the Lichtenstein group (p<0.05) (Table 2).
Tolerance to local anesthesia was good during surgery in 51,1% and 56,3% respectively (NS). The mean duration of surgery was 42 minutes for Lichtenstein and 52 minutes for Desarda group (p<0.05). Analysis of pain scores from day one to day 5 showed no significant difference (Table 3).
There was no incidence of severe pain in any of the groups after three months. The recurrence rate was 0.0 % in the Desarda group, and 0.28 % in the Lichtenstein group (NS). Four patients in the Lichtenstein group required re-exploration and mesh removal for the chronic suppuration. These patients had chronic suppuration, motivated by the rejection of the mesh which caused the mesh to be removed. Thus 0.5% of patients in the Lichtenstein group required a further surgical intervention for either recurrence or sepsis which was significantly higher than the Desarda group (p<0.05). All the patients were operated by the same surgeon and his helpers. (Table 4).
The seroma was the complication that most frequently occurred with 21 patients in both groups (1.5%). 53 (7.6%) patients developed post-operative complications in the Lichtenstein group and 25 (3.8 %) patients showed complications in the Desarda group (p<0.05) (Table 5).
67,6 % patients returned to work within 8-15 days in the Desarda group with a mean of 13,4 days while 53,2 % patients returned to work within 8-15 days with a mean of 14.5 days in the Lichtenstein group, that is significant because in the Lichtenstein group the morbidity is higher than in the Desarda group. (p<0.05) (Table 6).
There was no case of chronic groin pain lasting for more than 6 months in either of the groups.
Follow up was complete in over 97% at 1 year, 92% at 2 years, 89% at 3 years, 83% at 4 years,
80% at 5 years, 80% at 6 years, 76% at 7 years, 73% at 8 years, 72% at 9 years and 70% at
10 years with no significant difference between the two operation groups.
Mesh repair is now widely used in the developed world and is often referred to as the gold standard despite the relative shortage of clinical trials comparing mesh with suture repair. The cost of surgery [7] and postoperative morbidity that affects the quality of life are important considerations in inguinal hernia surgery. There is no clear scientific evidence to show that prosthetic mesh repair is superior to non-prosthetic repair in this regard [8]. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with all types of open inguinal hernia repairs. The existing non-prosthetic repair (Bassini / Shouldice) is blamed for causing tension in the tissue and the prosthetic mesh repair is attributed to the known complications of a foreign body. Dr. Desarda sutures a strip not separated from the external oblique aponeurosis between the muscular arch and the inguinal ligament to give a strong and physiologically dynamic posterior wall [9]. This results in a tension-free repair without the use of any foreign body. By being simple to perform, it eliminates the disadvantage of the technical difficulty observed with the ice repair should.
Different studies have tried to give an answer on which of the existing operations is the best for the repair of inguinal hernia [10,11]. The collaboration of EU Hernia Trialist [12] conducted a systematic review of prospective randomized studies and the analysis of the results of these different studies. He showed that the duration of surgery was shorter in hernioplasty in six studies, longer in three and equal in the remaining six. In our group, there was a significant but slight increase in the operating time with the Desarda operation. Postoperative pain after prosthetic mesh repair may be less than after ice repair in case of reduced tension [12,13]. Our results have shown that there are no significant differences between the two groups for pain from the first to the fifth day after surgery. We found no significant differences in the analgesic requirements between the techniques. The overall morbidity was 5.4%, which is similar to the rates described in other studies (7-12%) [14]. The morbidity rate was higher after Lichtenstein repair (46 cases, 7.1% versus 5.4.0% in the modified Disarda group). There were 8 mesh infections after surgery in the Lichtenstein group. Two cases required partial excision of the mesh and in case, it was associated with recurrence. The modified Desarda technique has a lower morbidity compared to hernioplasty of mesh. We believe that no cases of recurrences observed in the modified Desarda group were due to the adequate lateralization of the cord and the sufficient narrowing of the inner ring as advised by Desarda.
This was evident in the rescan in those cases that only needed a narrowing of the inner ring with few more points. In patients admitted to the hospital, postoperative stays and the period required to return to normal work after surgery also significantly favored the modified Desarda group. 57 patients of the Lichtenstein group required more than 3 days in the hospital due to local wound complications or for other reasons compared to only 14 patients in the modified Desarda group, a significant difference.
We noticed a marked difference in the type of anesthetic used, 43.6% v 63% for the local, 49.2% v 37.7% for the spine and 7.2% v 3.3% for the general anesthetic in the modified Disarm group of Lichtenstein. This could affect hospital stay statistics for patients who required hospitalization. The external oblique muscle technique meets all the criteria of modern hernia surgery. It is simple and easy to do. It does not require risky or complicated dissection. There is minimal tension in the suture line. It does not require any foreign material and does not use weak muscle or transverse fascia for repair. It does not use mesh prostheses, so it is cheaper. No foreign body is required in the repair of Desarda, thus avoiding the morbidity associated with foreign bodies, including rejection, infection and chronic groin pain.
Jacek Szopinski, et al. [15] stated in its randomized controlled trial (RCT) that the "Disarm technique" has the potential to increase the number of tissue-based methods available to treat groin hernias. The most obvious indications for the use of the modified Disarda technique include the use in young patients, in contaminated surgical fields, in the presence of financial restrictions, or if a patient does not agree with the use of the mesh ”. Situma, et al. [16] compared the Desarda technique with the modified Bassini technique in their RCT and concluded that there is no difference in the short-term outcome between Desarda and the repair of the modified Bassini inguinal hernia with respect to the resumption of normal gait and pain patterns. Manyilirah [17] concluded in his RCT that the efficacy of the Disarda technique with respect to the early clinical results of hernia repair is similar to that of the Lichtenstein method. However, the operator in this study showed that Desarda repair takes a significantly shorter operating time [18, 19]. Therefore, the authors conclude that modified Desarda repair for inguinal hernia gives the same or better results compared to Lichtenstein mesh repair with a shorter hospital stay, faster recovery and avoidance of related specific complications. with the mesh, while reducing the cost of surgery. It is technically simpler than Shouldice repair and we recommend that surgeons become familiar with this technique [20, 21, 22, 23].
In published studies, the recently proposed modified Disarda technique (combined approach of the Desarda and Modified Bassini technique) is a tougher repair for the terms of indirect inguinal hernia of late recurrence in contrast to the Desarda alone procedure [24,25,26,27].
It was demonstrated that the recently proposed Modified Disarming Technique (combined approach of the Desarda and Modified Bassini technique) is a stronger repair for inguinal hernia in terms of late recurrence and that the use of meshes in the Lichtenstein Technique results in greater morbidity , rejections and reexplorations can be found, which cause discomfort to our patients and their families.
The authors do not declare conflicts of interest.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
